Developers need to be clear in their communication with gamers.

Informed consumers routinely go into game purchases armed with dozens of previews, reviews, and pages of forum chatter shaping their decision. For many gamers, though, the decision of whether to buy or not is made solely on the basis of the back-of-the-box ad copy or its modern-day PC equivalent—the Steam description page. So when that page starts making promises the game itself can't keep, those buyers are going to be justifiably angry.

Such was the case this week with Hammerpoint Interactive's The War Z (not to be confused with ArmA II mod Day Z), which hit Steam on Monday and quickly became the top-grossing game on the service. That success was thanks in part to an impressive list of features listed on the Steam page, including persistent worlds of up to 400 square kilometers, private servers, "dozens of available skills," and "up to 100 players per game server."

Too bad none of those things were actually in the game that thousands of people spent $15 or more to buy. These and other issues with the initial Steam release have led to widespread player outrage on forums like Reddit, NeoGAF, and Steam itself. The complaints have gotten so bad that Steam has "temporar[ily] removed the sale offering of the title until we have time to work with the developer and have confidence in a new build."

“There's no such thing as 'Release'”

In an interview with GameSpy, Hammerpoint Executive Producer Sergey Titov offered a limited apology to players angry about the Steam listing, which he says included both current features and some planned for future updates (the Steam page was updated a day or so after launch to clarify this distinction). He also suggested the vast majority of players were satisfied with the game and that only a few misinterpreted what was meant by the Steam description.

Titov defended the initial Steam listing as technically accurate. While the game allowed only 50 players per server at first, for instance, Titov noted private servers are able to host the promised 100 (those servers were later opened up to the public). And while the Steam listing implies multiple, huge worlds of up to 400 square kilometers, Titov said that the single, initial map does indeed fall in the low end of the promised "100 to 400 sq. km" range (though there's some reason to doubt that estimate as well). A couple offorum threads on the official War Z forums offered more apologies alternating with brittle defensiveness.

GA screenshot from The War Z's Steam release clearly shows parts of the game still labeled as "alpha functionality."

In any case, Titov's main defense was the relativistic claim that an online game like this is never really "finished" in the way that a retail game of the past might have been. "My point is—online games are [a] living breathing GAME SERVICE," he told GameSpy. "This is not a boxed product that you buy one time. It's [an] evolving product that will have more and more features and content coming. This is what The War Z is."

After offering The War Z as an alpha release for pre-orderers in October (and as a closed beta earlier this month), the version that hit Steam on Monday is what Hammerpoint considers a "Foundation release." The developer said it's ready for sale. But that semantic distinction still isn't noted on the Steam page, and it doesn't mean the game is complete. "There's no such thing as 'Release' for an online game," said Titov. "As far as I'm concerned The War Z is in stage when we're ready to stop calling it Beta."

This isn't a sufficient defense for lying to (or at least misleading) players about your game's current feature list, of course. But statements like these reflect a recent reality that should be familiar to most gamers: the game you buy on launch day is rarely the final version of the game. Even AAA titles are often faced with massive patches that fix issues found between the time the game was "released" and the day it was finally "completed" (see Assassin's Creed III for just one recent example). Aside from fixing glitches, post-release patching might turn the game you bought into a different game entirely through gameplay re-balancing and tweaking.

By and large, gamers are by now used to this "release first, patch later" world. But the scale of the difference between what is promised and what is initially delivered seems to be increasing. Social and mobile game developers now routinely discuss releasing games when they have a "minimum viable product," meaning a barely playable game that will be updated constantly as it attracts early adopters, often using live player data to guide the continuing design process. Massive success stories like Minecraft have made millions selling what were clearly labeled as "alpha" and "beta" versions of the game with vague promises about when the "final" release would hit. Kickstarter lets people essentially purchase pre-orders of games that often exist only as vaguely described concepts, going well beyond the more limited retail pre-orders for nearly complete physical games of the past.

The difference between “finished” and “complete”

Enlarge/ Many players felt misled after buying Cortex Command when it was still "unfinished."

The line between a game that is still being developed and one that is ready to be sold and played by the buying public is fuzzier than ever. And this isn't the first time that fuzzy line has led to controversy on Steam. In September, Cortex Commandhit the service and immediately faced loud complaints from players upset that the $20 game they had purchased was still unfinished. While the developer's own sales page tells potential buyers in bold letters that the game is a "work in progress," the Steam description meekly notes near the bottom that the game is "still being improved" and is "not in a completely polished state yet."

In light of the controversy, Cortex Command's developers issued a lengthy FAQ that gets into some pretty minute semantic territory about the game's development status. "To me, a 'finished' game is totally done and won't really be touched again by its developers, ever (save for ports, etc). 'Complete' means it is fully playable..." the FAQ reads in part. "On one hand, calling a piece of software '1.0' strongly implies completeness. On the other hand, to me it's also still only the very first revision that is fully usable," it says later.

This is the world we live in now, where developers have to make a distinction between "playable" and "complete." Making that distinction requires a new, heightened level of communication between developers and players about the precise, current state of the game being sold, a standard The War Z definitely failed to achieve.

For its part, Valve apologized for letting The War Z onto its service before fully vetting it. "From time to time a mistake can be made and one was made by prematurely issuing a copy of War Z for sale via Steam," a spokesman told Ars. "Those who purchase the game and wish to continue playing it via Steam may do so. Those who purchased the title via Steam and are unhappy with what they received may seek a refund by creating a ticket at our support site here."

That's all well and good for this situation, but it seems clear that Valve needs to update its guidelines for how "finished" a game needs to be before it can hit Steam. It should also provide rules to developers for to describe unfinished games on their Steam pages. This is especially true as Steam opens its service up to approved Greenlight games from developers that often don't have the same proven track record or internal quality standards of major developers (some Steam users are already complaining about games being greenlit before they're sufficiently done). Perhaps an update to the Steam refund policy—offering players their money back within a short time after the first time the game is played—would alleviate some of these issues (Valve currently makes it nearly impossible to get a refund on most purchases made through Steam).

Regardless of the precise fix, Valve needs to address these issues in order to maintain its rock-solid integrity as the most trustworthy and reliable downloadable game delivery service on the Internet. This isn't the last time an issue like this is going to come up. Valve should be more prepared for it next time.

Promoted Comments

I purchased "Ravaged" recently. Upon purchase, there was a disclaimer on the opening splash screen that instructed me to go into my game directory and change the name of one of the files (which would have to be done EVERY SINGLE TIME I attempted to log-in and play it). Fortunately, there was patch recently released which fixed this issue, but there was absolutely NO mention of this when I purchased it on the Steam page. Based on this experience and the unsettling info in this article, you can bet it'll be a cold day in Hell before I go anywhere near any of their "Greenlight" games until they can prove their quality control issues are revised.

Kyle Orland
Kyle is the Senior Gaming Editor at Ars Technica, specializing in video game hardware and software. He has journalism and computer science degrees from University of Maryland. He is based in the Washington, DC area. Emailkyle.orland@arstechnica.com//Twitter@KyleOrl

It's a slippery slope for Steam. They can lock down tighter on when and how games can be released with the potential backlash of being seen as becoming more like iOS. It's incredibly difficult for any service like this to nail down the 'proper' amount of regulation.

It's a slippery slope for Steam. They can lock down tighter on when and how games can be released with the potential backlash of being seen as becoming more like iOS. It's incredibly difficult for any service like this to nail down the 'proper' amount of regulation.

There at least needs to be some sort of vetting that goes on to prove to Valve that the game they're about to promote actually delivers on what the developers are promising. Hopefully this incident makes them rethink their process, because it's not the first time it's happened (though it has been the most covered).

I've had Steam experience with incomplete titles via Fray and Cortex Command, neither of which (AFAIK) were pulled. I'm curious what other titles exist on Steam which aren't yet ready for the spotlight. To my knowledge, this is the first time Valve has recalled a title for this reason.

If a game's current state differs significantly from its description, it should be pulled, and the developer punished in an appropriate fashion; say, being forced to pay and wait for a Valve employee to vet future release versions and patches.

It's a slippery slope for Steam. They can lock down tighter on when and how games can be released with the potential backlash of being seen as becoming more like iOS. It's incredibly difficult for any service like this to nail down the 'proper' amount of regulation.

There at least needs to be some sort of vetting that goes on to prove to Valve that the game they're about to promote actually delivers on what the developers are promising. Hopefully this incident makes them rethink their process, because it's not the first time it's happened (though it has been the most covered).

According to a Forbes piece, if a developer has released one game, that gets checked, but subsequent games are not checked and are just let up on Steam.

Steam having no real QC is not a new thing, and will only get worse. When Steam is basically acting like a publisher for many of these games, they also have an added responsibility to make sure what they are putting out isn't a load of crap, that's why people like MS and Apple, as crazy as some elements of their policies are, have policies.

It's a slippery slope for Steam. They can lock down tighter on when and how games can be released with the potential backlash of being seen as becoming more like iOS. It's incredibly difficult for any service like this to nail down the 'proper' amount of regulation.

There at least needs to be some sort of vetting that goes on to prove to Valve that the game they're about to promote actually delivers on what the developers are promising. Hopefully this incident makes them rethink their process, because it's not the first time it's happened (though it has been the most covered).

Steam could put something like a steam opinion of the game as to its completed state. This helps avoid the backlash that could result from becoming to restrictive on that, and it could inform players. Some players might not mind that there are some features in alpha, or that are coming soon, while others want a 100% completed game.

Of course there are challenges with this proposal, specifically the tremendous catalouge of games that exist and are released yearly. But perhapes steam can create a special premium category were players become steamcertified testers and reviewers in exchange for something, say earlier access to certain games.

It's a slippery slope for Steam. They can lock down tighter on when and how games can be released with the potential backlash of being seen as becoming more like iOS. It's incredibly difficult for any service like this to nail down the 'proper' amount of regulation.

Just checking that the game description is accurate doesn't require iOS-like arbitrary content restrictions.

I'm fine with a game developer saying, "Here is what we have implemented, and here is what we plan to implement in the future." However, false claims about the functionality of the released version are unacceptable.

It's a slippery slope for Steam. They can lock down tighter on when and how games can be released with the potential backlash of being seen as becoming more like iOS. It's incredibly difficult for any service like this to nail down the 'proper' amount of regulation.

There at least needs to be some sort of vetting that goes on to prove to Valve that the game they're about to promote actually delivers on what the developers are promising. Hopefully this incident makes them rethink their process, because it's not the first time it's happened (though it has been the most covered).

Steam could put something like a steam opinion of the game as to its completed state. This helps avoid the backlash that could result from becoming to restrictive on that, and it could inform players. Some players might not mind that there are some features in alpha, or that are coming soon, while others want a 100% completed game.

Of course there are challenges with this proposal, specifically the tremendous catalouge of games that exist and are released yearly. But perhapes steam can create a special premium category were players become steamcertified testers and reviewers in exchange for something, say earlier access to certain games.

Or they could start vetting products more rigorously, and taking some responsibility for what they sell.If they sell lots of games, that just means they have more to be responsible for. When those games are also locked to Steam, in many cases, there is even more onus on Valve. They are the gatekeeper and should ensure that what they let in is of a certain standard.

I don't think I got this off the Ars WarZ forum, if I did forgive me for not giving credit. It really is a great review of bad software brought you by the guy who sparked this article. Not surprising at all.

They could have an "alpha" or "beta" section for games like this, which could then be "released" and therefore moved into the appropriate section after the developer gives it the go ahead. Obviously I wouldn't expect them to open this to anybody that has a beta, but developers they work with that they know will release and could benefit from something like this. If the developer says its released though, I agree they should be penalized if they are putting up descriptions that do not match what is actually being sold, and are unclear that they are TODO. I know this can open quite a few other issues, but at least there would be a bit of distinction. Desura/indivania and quite a few other sites already do this right now.

I bought Sword of the Stars 2 last year, and was extremely disappointed. At least they admitted that their game was unfinished and worked for the next year to correct problems (some of which are still around).

I miss the days of games being released with only a few bugs here and there.

Why are we so upset at Steam? It's the developer that released an incomplete game and was at best misleading (and at worst outright lying) about the game's features. If they released it in boxed retail, we wouldn't gripe about how GameStop or Walmart was too lax about what they sold.

The fact that this is a recurring theme is distressing. It was bad enough when the publisher/developer says "Don't bother to QA it now, ship it now and we'll patch it later." Now the idea is "Don't bother to finish it, ship it now and we'll add the rest of the features later"? I suppose it's a consequence of letting all the important decisions for the games be made by business people, instead of people who actually understand games.

Ah, the tragedy of first-world problems. Honestly some of the complaints really sound like entitled whining (i.e. my $15 only got me 100 sq km!). Even though it seems this could be easily remedied by properly vetted descriptions, Steam has owned up here by offering refunds.

This is just one of the many reasons I simply don't buy titles at launch anymore. There are plenty of other things to play, and it's nice to evaluate a purchase after others have put mileage on it and the hypes dies down. It's easier at that point to separate the quality titles from the garbage... which you can then probably get for a discount.

Ah, yes, FWP. I'm not sure that applies here. I'd think it's more likely apt to buy a BMW and find what amounts to a Ford Pinto underneath it all. The description said I was buying a BMW. If they told me this is a new Ford, that's fine, I'd know exactly what I was getting, and make the decision to spend the money or not. This is different. They aren't saying my 15 dollars got me 100 sq km, they're saying you told me my 15 dollars was going to get me 400 sq km.

Like buying a 16 ounce steak with veggies and a potato, and being served a 4 ounce steak with one carrot when your order comes out. That's the appropriate correlation.

The way you put it in the article makes it sound like there was a Steam sale on the game but has since been revoked (presumably returning the game it's regular price?)

Yeah, I admit that I wasn't reading too closely, but that was my impression as well. That Steam had pulled the sale. Although on a second reading, that's a quote from Valve, so it's more that they said it poorly.

Quote:

Why are we so upset at Steam? It's the developer that released an incomplete game and was at best misleading (and at worst outright lying) about the game's features. If they released it in boxed retail, we wouldn't gripe about how GameStop or Walmart was too lax about what they sold.

GameStop or Walmart receives a boxed copy that they can't test unless they want to rip open one of the boxes. Valve gets the games electronically, and very much can do testing on it. I'm not saying that I'm upset with Steam. But to say that they're just like a B&M retailer is definitely an incorrect analogy.

Quote:

They could have an "alpha" or "beta" section for games like this, which could then be "released" and therefore moved into the appropriate section after the developer gives it the go ahead.

This is my thought too. Have a clearly defined "alpha/beta" section, where developers can offer games on discount, based on the clearly expressed disclaimer that people are buying an unfinished game that may change significantly, and will certainly have bugs in it. The claims from Hammerpoint Interactive, about how they were just advertising future features, without identifying them as such, wouldn't fly with me. Either clearly note that it's due in future releases, or don't mention it at all.

It's a slippery slope for Steam. They can lock down tighter on when and how games can be released with the potential backlash of being seen as becoming more like iOS. It's incredibly difficult for any service like this to nail down the 'proper' amount of regulation.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here but... How about a game isn't released until it's actually done. Too draconian?

Ah, the tragedy of first-world problems. Honestly some of the complaints really sound like entitled whining (i.e. my $15 only got me 100 sq km!). Even though it seems this could be easily remedied by properly vetted descriptions, Steam has owned up here by offering refunds.

When you pay for a thing, i.e. with your money, you are in fact entitled to that thing you just paid for. When you do not subsequently receive the thing you paid for and complain about it, that's not 'whining', it's 'holding the vendor/producer accountable for their broken promises.'

It's a slippery slope for Steam. They can lock down tighter on when and how games can be released with the potential backlash of being seen as becoming more like iOS. It's incredibly difficult for any service like this to nail down the 'proper' amount of regulation.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here but... How about a game isn't released until it's actually done. Too draconian?

Yeah, that's way too draconian. It was never on Steam, but when was Minecraft "done"? When was it worth buying? Pretty much as soon as Notch started selling it. At the most, Steam should consider having a clear indication that the user is buying an "alpha" product.

I just don't see how it's a problem for me to be able play "Towns" or "Cortex Command" right now through Steam. I sometimes like the idea of playing a game early in its developement.

I don't need Valve to police the games for sale. I don't see how people are not doing some basic research before buying a game beyound what the game creators are saying. You clearly have an internet connection and there's a link right to the forums. If you buy something without reading a single review, it's hard to feel to bad for you.

If a company says misleading things about its games, then don't buy from that company. Why should Valve do anything more than facilitate the sale and download?

It's a slippery slope for Steam. They can lock down tighter on when and how games can be released with the potential backlash of being seen as becoming more like iOS. It's incredibly difficult for any service like this to nail down the 'proper' amount of regulation.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here but... How about a game isn't released until it's actually done. Too draconian?

Yeah, that's way too draconian. It was never on Steam, but when was Minecraft "done"? /quote]

It was done when it was playable and the player never noticed any missing content. You know.. finished? Adding content to a completed game is not quite the same.

It's a slippery slope for Steam. They can lock down tighter on when and how games can be released with the potential backlash of being seen as becoming more like iOS. It's incredibly difficult for any service like this to nail down the 'proper' amount of regulation.

Just checking that the game description is accurate doesn't require iOS-like arbitrary content restrictions.

I'm fine with a game developer saying, "Here is what we have implemented, and here is what we plan to implement in the future." However, false claims about the functionality of the released version are unacceptable.

likewise, I bought endless space(?) when it was posted like that. for an alpha (or whatever it was), it's remarkably enjoyable & has occasional updates since I bought it I'd not have been so happy with it had it been released with the final planned feature-set & no alpha/beta /preview/whatever it was note on the release.

The way you put it in the article makes it sound like there was a Steam sale on the game but has since been revoked (presumably returning the game it's regular price?)

A bit confusing. Just my two cents.

Well, it WAS on a sale this week, before it was pulled.

War Z has been called a money grab since it was announced this last summer. The company's claimed it wasn't a DayZ ripoff. They've said that it's been in development for 2 years and the timing was just coincidental. This is being proven less and less true as things play out. The first hint it didn't pass the smell test was that they based it on an existing game when they started development.

As for the overall Beta and Release issue, I've been troubled by the tendency to have indie titles sold as if they were fully finished games. Heck, some games (like Don't Starve) have been available long enough that they are already having sales on it, and it's not slated for official release until March. Don't get me wrong, it's not necessarily a bad idea since it gets indie titles early cash to finish but sets up the potential for some significant abuses. At the very least, Steam needs to set up a category of Beta or Pre-Release similar to how they handle MMO titles.

Ideally, Steam would test the games first, but that takes lots of resources. That's why Microsoft charges for xbox live certification - they test the thing. I'm sure Valve doesn't have the resources now to test everything that they post. If they wanted to test everything, then I don't see how they could do it without charging the devs.

But... Random idea: Maybe Valve could look into something like enforced betas for new developers? They could require that the dev allow a certain beta period, even for finished games. I think it wouldn't be too hard to lure gamers with the idea of "hey, help us test and get a free game". Steam certainly has the install base to support crowd-sourced testing.

They could allow established devs who keep up a good reputation would be able to get by w/o the mandatory beta period.

Can we be honest and point out that this is just an extreme example of what big game studios do all the time? Cut content with obvious hooks, and glaring bugs that had no excuse not to be caught and fixed before release. The biggest issue with this sort of thing and Steam is that you have limited to no refund opportunity. If I buy a game and it doesn't live up to my expectations of a working game that matches the advertising, I want to be able to return it. Civilization V bought on Steam as soon as it was out was what brought this to my attention. They gave me a refund just that once "as a courtesy".